Any theorem is only as good as its assumptions. The BGV theorem says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given worldline, this worldline cannot be infinite to the past.

A possible loophole is that there might be an epoch of contraction prior to the expansion. Models of this sort have been discussed by Aguirre & Gratton and by Carroll & Chen. They had to assume though that the minimum of entropy was reached at the bounce and offered no mechanism to enforce this condition. It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning.

On the other hand, Jaume Garriga and I are now exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply. In bubbles of negative vacuum energy, expansion is followed by cocntraction, and it is usually assumed that this ends in a big crunch singularity. However, it is conceivable (and many people think likely) that singularities will be resolved in the theory of quantum gravity, so the internal collapse of the bubbles will be followed by an expansion. In this scenario, a typical worldline will go through a succession of expanding and contracting regions, and it is not at all clear that the BGV assumption (expansion on average) will be satisfied.

I suspect that the theorem can be extended to this case, maybe with some additional assumptions. But of course there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, especially in matters like the creation of the universe. Note for example that the BGV theorem uses a classical picture of spacetime. In the regime where gravity becomes essentially quantum, we may not even know the right questions to ask.

Alex

Now recall that Krauss excuses the selective editing of the e-mail in the debate by saying that it was “too technical” to include. Judge for yourself if the omitted lines are “too technical” or whether they were omitted in order to mislead people about the evidence for the beginning of the universe.

Dr. Craig comments:

Whoa! That puts a very different face on the matter, doesn’t it? Why didn’t Krauss read the sentence, “It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning”? Because it was too technical? Is this the transparency, honesty, and forthrightness that Krauss extols? (By the way, Vilenkin’s criticism of these models is the same one that Vilenkin makes in his Cambridge paper: far from showing an eternal past, these models actually feature a universe with a common beginning point for two arrows of time.)

And why did Krauss delete Vilenkin’s caveat that the BGV theorem can, in his estimation, be extended to cover the case of an expanding and contracting model such as Garriga and Vilenkin are exploring? And why delete the remark that such a model is usually assumed to be incorrect? It’s evident that Vilenkin’s email was selectively edited to give it the spin Krauss wanted.

Some people told me that they thought that Dr. Craig needed to be a little less gracious with Krauss in the debate, but that comment takes Krauss on directly. Too bad most of the people who watch the debate will never know unless they see the original e-mail from Vilenkin that Craig posted.

Dr. Craig then wrote to Dr. Vilenkin about this misrepresentation and here is part of the reply:

The Aguirre-Gratton model can avoide singularities by postulating a small “initial” closed universe and then allowing it to evolve in both directions of time. I put “initial” in quotation marks, because Aguirre and Gratton do not think of it that way. But this model requires that a very special condition is enforced at some moment in the history of the universe. At that moment, the universe should be very small and have very low entropy. Aguirre and Gratton do not specify a physical mechanism that could enforce such a condition.

Carroll and Chen claim that the universe did not have to be small at that special moment. But in my recent paper I show that in this case singularities are unavoidable.

[…]I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately.

Now I don’t want anyone to get the idea that all atheists are like Krauss. I distinctly remember another atheist named Anthony Flew debating Dr. Craig and a questioner from the audience asked him why not prefer speculative cosmologies like the eternally oscillating model. Dr. Flew (unlike Dr. Krauss) was honest – he said that we have to accept the science we have today based on the evidence we have today. Dr. Krauss is not willing to accept the science we have today and the evidence we have today. That’s the difference. This is a failing of Dr. Krauss’ will and intellect. He simply cannot bring himself to accept what science has shown, if it impacts his autonomy in any way. He would rather mislead himself and others with speculations rather than face reality.

The segment from 52:18 to 57:12 about the Vilenkin e-mail on the BVG theorem is a must-see. Krauss is standing up and gesticulating while Craig is calmly trying to quote a paper by Vilenkin that shows that Krauss is misrepresenting Vilenkin. Krauss constantly interrupts him. After a while, when Craig exposes him as having misrepresented Vilenkin and gets him to admit that all current eternal models of the universe are probably wrong, he quietens down and can’t even look at Craig in the face.

Cosmological argument:

Craig: The e-mail says any universe that is expanding, on average, requires a beginning

Craig: There are two models – Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen – where there is a period of contraction before the expansion

Craig: The two models are the ones cited in the e-mail that Dr. Krauss showed

Craig: In the very paper by Vilenkin that I cited, he says that both of those models don’t work

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Vilenkin said that they have to make an assumption about entropy that they have no rationale for

(as Craig starts to talk Krauss makes an exaggerated, disrespectful gesture and sits down in a huff)

Craig: Yes, an unwarranted assumption means that they don’t have EVIDENCE for their theories being correct

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “All the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning but WE DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!” (raising his voice)

Craig: I’m not saying that we know that the universe had a beginning with certainty

Craig: I am saying that the beginning of the universe is more probably true than false based on the evidence we have

Craig: And you agree with me about that – you think the universe had a beginning

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) (Unintelligible)

Moderator: One at a time

Craig: In your Vilenkin e-mail slide, at the end of the paragraph where the two models are mentioned that Vilenkin specifically shows…

(I am guessing that Craig is going to ask why so much of what Vilenkin wrote has been cut out of the e-mail that Krauss showed)

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Because it was technical…

Moderator: Lawrence! Hang on a sec!

Craig: He specifically shows that these models are not past eternal, and that they require a beginning just like the others…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) We can do the math if you want

Craig: Now wait. I couldn’t help notice that there on your slide there was a series of ellipsis points indicating missing text…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “Yeah, because it was technical!”

Craig: “I wonder what you deleted from the original letter”

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “I just told you!”

Craig: “Now wait. Could it have been something like this: (reads a quote from Vilenkin) ‘You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.’

Craig: “That’s Vilenkin.”

Krauss: “In this paper, that’s absolutely right”

Krauss: But it’s ok for theories to assume things that we know are wrong – they are still good theories – it’s unknown

(Craig turns away and looks through his papers)

Craig: “Isn’t it true that the only viable quantum gravity models on order today involve a beginning – have a finite past?”

Krauss: “No”

Craig: “Well, can you give us one then”

Krauss: (talks about a variety of possible eternal models) “In my experience in science, all of them are probably wrong”

Krauss: “You know most theories are wrong, which is why, you know, it’s hard”

Craig: “Right”

Krauss accused Dr. Craig of misrepresenting science many times in his three Australia debates, but now we know the truth about who misrepresented science.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

Now given what Krauss did in the debate, it seems to me that he is not in agreement with Feynman.

UPDATE: Dr. Craig reports that Dr. Krauss refused to let the organizers live-stream the three Australia debates, as well as refusing to let the Australian Broadcasting Corporation live-broadcast the three debates.

Dr. Graham Oppy, the moderator, is a well-known atheist philosopher. He let Dr. Krauss speak for 21 minutes and 40 seconds, which is why my summary of Krauss is so long.

The video:

Summary

After careful consideration, I decided not to be snarky at all in this summary. What you read below is what happened. There may be some small mistakes, but I will fix those if people tell me about them. I also included some quotes and timestamps for the more striking things that Dr. Krauss said.

The debate itself starts at 4:50 with Dr. Craig’s opening speech. He does use slides to show the structure of his arguments.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech. (4:50)

The kalam cosmological argument:

God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe

The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem supports the absolute beginning of the universe

Even if our universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse itself would have to have an absolute beginning

Speculative cosmologies try to challenge the Big Bang theory, but none of them – even if true – can establish that the past is eternal

Only two types of things could explain the origin of spece, time, matter and energy – either abstract objects or minds

Abstract objects do not cause effects, but minds do cause effects (we do it ourselves)

A mind is the best explanation for the origin of the universe

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics:

The underlying structure of nature is mathematical – mathematics is applicable to nature

Mathematical objects can either be abstract objects or useful fiction

Either way, there is no reason to expect that nature should be linked to abstract objects or fictions

But a divine mind that wants humans to understand nature is a better explanation for what we see

The cosmic fine-tuning for the existence of intelligent life

There are two kinds of finely-tuned initial conditions: 1) cosmological constants and 2) quantities

These constants and quantities have to be set within a narrow range in order to permit intelligent life

There are three explanations for this observation: law, chance or design

Law is rejected because they are put in at the beginning or matter – they don’t emerge from matter

Chance must be rejected, because they odds are just too long unless you appeal to a world-ensemble

We do not observe what the world ensemble hypothesis predicts that we should observe

Design is the best explanation for finely-tuned constants and quantities

The existence of objective moral values and duties

Our experience of morality (values and duties) is that it is objectively real and incumbent on us

When someone goes into a classroom and shoots at innocent children, that is objectively wrong

On naturalism, moral values and moral duties do not exist – they are conventional and variable by time and place

The best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties is that God exists

The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus

There are three widely-accepted facts that are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis

1) the empty tomb, 2) the post-mortem appearances, 3) the early church’s belief in the resurrection

Naturalistic attempts to explain these 3 boilerplate facts fail

The best explanation of the 3 minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead

The immediate experience of God

Belief in God is a “properly basic” belief – rational even without arguments because of experience of God

“We get back aches” therefore “This argument that [the universe] is fine-tuned for life is nonsense”

William Lane Craig can be proven to exhibit homosexual behavior using logical arguments

Look, you can construct arguments that are clearly wrong

Premise 1: “All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior”

Premise 2: “William Lane Craig is a mammal”

Seems to be saying that logical arguments can prove false things “it’s nonsense”

Dr. Craig distorted a podcast that some group made on pain receptors

Dr. Craig’s faith is so strong that it causes him to distort what this group said

Discussion: (44:35)

I will not be summarizing everything that was said, just a few main points.

The segment from 52:18 to 57:12 about the Vilenkin e-mail on the BVG theorem is a must-see. Krauss is standing up and gesticulating while Craig is calmly trying to quote a paper by Vilenkin that shows that Krauss is misrepresenting Vilenkin. Krauss constantly interrupts him. After a while, when Craig exposes him as having misrepresented Vilenkin and gets him to admit that all current eternal models of the universe are probably wrong, he quietens down and can’t even look at Craig in the face.

Cosmological argument:

Craig: The e-mail says any universe that is expanding, on average, requires a beginning

Craig: There are two models – Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen – where there is a period of contraction before the expansion

Craig: The two models are the ones cited in the e-mail that Dr. Krauss showed

Craig: In the very paper by Vilenkin that I cited, he says that both of those models don’t work

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Vilenkin said that they have to make an assumption about entropy that they have no rationale for

(as Craig starts to talk Krauss makes an exaggerated, disrespectful gesture and sits down in a huff)

Craig: Yes, an unwarranted assumption means that they don’t have EVIDENCE for their theories being correct

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “All the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning but WE DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!” (raising his voice)

Craig: I’m not saying that we know that the universe had a beginning with certainty

Craig: I am saying that the beginning of the universe is more probably true than false based on the evidence we have

Craig: And you agree with me about that – you think the universe had a beginning

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) (Unintelligible)

Moderator: One at a time

Craig: In your Vilenkin e-mail slide, at the end of the paragraph where the two models are mentioned that Vilenkin specifically shows…

(I am guessing that Craig is going to ask why so much of what Vilenkin wrote has been cut out of the e-mail that Krauss showed)

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Because it was technical…

Moderator: Lawrence! Hang on a sec!

Craig: He specifically shows that these models are not past eternal, and that they require a beginning just like the others…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) We can do the math if you want

Craig: Now wait. I couldn’t help notice that there on your slide there was a series of ellipsis points indicating missing text…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “Yeah, because it was technical!”

Craig: “I wonder what you deleted from the original letter”

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “I just told you!”

Craig: “Now wait. Could it have been something like this: (reads a quote from Vilenkin) ‘You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.’

Craig: “That’s Vilenkin.”

Krauss: “In this paper, that’s absolutely right”

Krauss: But it’s ok for theories to assume things that we know are wrong – they are still good theories – it’s unknown

(Craig turns away and looks through his papers)

Craig: “Isn’t it true that the only viable quantum gravity models on order today involve a beginning – have a finite past?”

Krauss: “No”

Craig: “Well, can you give us one then”

Krauss: (talks about a variety of possible eternal models) “In my experience in science, all of them are probably wrong”

Krauss: “You know most theories are wrong, which is why, you know, it’s hard”

Craig: “Right”

I noticed that a huge number of atheist web sites are taking the Vilenkin quote that Krauss used out of context, like this one and this one. There are probably a lot more of them like that, which I think is interesting. That’s why we have these debates, I guess. To set the record straight about who accuses people of being dishonest, and who is actually dishonest.

Fine-tuning:

Krauss tried to argue that he had explained the fine-tuning with the Higgs particle, but Dr. Craig said that only applied to the cosmological constant, not all the other examples of fine-tuning. Krauss said that it wasn’t impressive that this universe permitted life and that “It would have been much more surprising if we evolved in a universe in which we couldn’t live”. Krauss argued the fine-tuning was only for “Life like us”. But Dr. Craig explained that the fine-tuning is what allows us to have the basics of any kind of life, like slow-burning stars, chemical diversity, etc. – things that are required for basic minimal life functions in any living system. Craig said that he was working with the current physical laws of this universe (F = ma, etc.) and that he was looking at what changed if we changed those even slightly. Krauss tried to say that if he changed things like the mass of particles then the strength of forces would change. (But the forces aren’t laws!) Krauss argued that the cosmological constant would be even better for life if it was zero, and Craig said that the life permitting range did include zero, but that the range of life-permitting values was narrow.

Jesus’ existence:

Craig reponded to the mystery religions charge, the charge that the evidence for the minimal facts is too late/too weak, the charge that grief visions explained the evidence better, and Hume’s argument against miracles. Craig brought up the early creed from 1 Cor 15:3-7 and explained to Krauss that it was 5 years after the events, and that Jewish standards of oral transmission were strong enough to ensure that the creed was reliable, and most of the eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

Audience Q and A: (1:21:09)

The first topic is the grounding of morality. Krauss agrees that there is no objective morality and no objective moral oughts. He also said that that standards of behavior are arbitrary, and that they change over time and they are adopted for promoting social order. Dr. Craig pressed the point that science itself would collapse without ethical values. It assumes them, but cannot ground them.

The next topic was free will. Krauss is a determinist. Craig asked him how he could reconcile moral responsibility with determinism.

The next topic was the effectiveness of mathematics. Krauss didn’t have an explanation for it and didn’t think it needed one. Then they got into whether the Genesis has been verified by science and whether it is meant to be taken literally.

The next topic was whether philosophy makes any progress. Craig gave the example of verificationism being rejected as too narrow, and self-refuting. Krauss: “I’m going to come to the defense of philosophy for the first time”. Craig: “That’s amazing!” Krauss said that science provides new knowledge. Craig said there were some things that could be known apart from science.

Atheism may look ridiculous, but it’s true, and if you don’t like it, too bad – because the universe is very strange

Accidents happen all the time, so that explains the cosmic fine-tuning

We all have to convince ourselves of 10 impossible things before breakfast, and atheism is impossible, so you need to convince yourself of it

I don’t know about the Big Bang, so Dr. Craig cannot use the Big Bang to to prove the universe began to exist

I don’t know about the cosmic fine-tuning, so Dr. Craig cannot use the fine-tuning of cosmological constants to prove the fine-tuning

I don’t know anything about science, so Dr. Craig cannot use science in his arguments

Dr. Craig says that the universe is contingent because it began to exist 13.7 billion years ago based on the state-of-the-art scientific evidence for the Big Bang creation out of nothing from 1) red-shift of light from distant galaxies, 2) cosmic microwave background radiation, 3) helium-hydrogen abundances, 4) experimental confirmation of general relativity, 5) the second law of thermodynamics, 6) radioactive element abundances, etc., but how does he know that? I don’t know that

It’s fine not to know the answer to scientific questions like whether the universe began to exist, it’s more exciting

Thinking that the universe began to exist based on 6 pieces of scientific evidence is the “God-of-the-Gaps” fallacy, it’s intellectual laziness

But all kidding aside, the universe actually did begin to exist 13.72 billion years ago, exactly like Craig says in his argument

I could argue that God created the universe 4.5 seconds ago with all of us sitting believing that we heard Dr. Craig, and how could you prove me wrong? It’s not falsifiable

Universes can spontaneously appear out of nothing, and in fact they have to appear out of nothing

Nothing is unstable, and space and time can come into existence out of nothing, so that’s not a problem

Our universe could have appeared out of a multiverse, an unobservable, untestable multiverse that I have no way of observing or testing

The universe is not fine-tuned for life, and no scientist says so, especially not Martin Rees, the atheist Astronomer Royal, and every other scientist

What if God decided that rape was OK, would it be OK? God can change his moral nature arbitrarily, can’t he?

Here are the arguments in Krauss’ second speech:

We don’t understand the beginning of the universe

We don’t understand whether the universe had a cause

Steven Weinberg says that science makes it possible to be an atheist, so therefore the universe didn’t begin and didn’t have a cause

It’s just intellectual laziness to say that the universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago, and that things that come into being of nothing have a cause

Dr. Craig is an expert on nothing, ha ha ha!

There are multiple versions of nothing, there’s nothing, and then there is something, which is also nothing if I want it to be

There was no space, there was no time, and then the space create the empty space

I’m going to give Dr. Craig a break

At least in the nothing there were laws like F=ma, and those laws created the empty space, because descriptions of matter that does not even exist yet can create space out of nothing

Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin are good friends of mine and I talk to them all the time, unlike Dr. Craig

Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin don’t mention God in their scientific papers, therefore the universe didn’t begin and didn’t have a cause

Maybe there is a multiverse that cannot be observed or tested? And my unscientific speculations are a refutation of Craig’s scientific evidence for the fine-tuning

Dr. Craig just doesn’t like my speculations about the unobservable, untestable multiverse, and that’s why he believes in the Big Bang cosmology

And if you let me speculate about an unobservable, untestable multiverse, then maybe the inanimate invisible universes reproduce and compete for food and mutate like animals and then there is natural selection so that the finely-tuned universes survive and now we’re in one!

My cool animation of blue goo mutating proves that the multiverse is real! Empty space is not empty!

Darwinism, which is a theory about the origin of species, explains the cosmic fine-tuning that occurred at the moment of creation

The unobservable, untestable multiverse universes all have different laws, I believe

We don’t know what the right answer is, but we are willing to look at any possibility, as long as the possibilities we look at are not supernatural possibilities

The discovery of the origin of the universe could be an accident, I don’t know if the universe began to exist or not, maybe all the six scientific evidences are wrong because if I don’t like the evidence we have, so I’ll just wait for new evidence to overturn the evidence we have which I don’t like

Maybe there are other forms of life that are unobservable and untestable that are compatible with a universe that has no stable stars, no planets, no elements heavier than hydrogen, no hydrogen, no carbon, etc.

Here are the arguments in Krauss’ third speech:

Dr. Craig is stupid

Why should we even care about Dr. Craig’s arguments and evidence, we can just count the number of scientists who are atheists and decide whether God exists that way – I decided everything based on what my teachers told me to believe

What quantum mechanics shows is that virtual particles come into being in a quantum vacuum, and then go out of existence almost immediately – and that is exactly like how a 13.7 billion year old universe came into being in a quantum vacuum, and we’re going to disappear very soon

Space and the laws of physics can be created, possibly, if you accept my speculations about an unobservable, untestable multiverse

I don’t like the God of the Old Testament, therefore he doesn’t exist

Groups of people can decide what they think is good and evil, like the Nazis and slave-owners did, and then that becomes good for them in that time and place, and that’s what I mean by morality

Not knowing things is really exciting! Dr. Craig is not really exciting because he knows things – phooey!

Here are the arguments in Krauss’ fourth speech:

If you will just grant me an observable, untestable multiverse, then there must be some universe where intelligent life exists

Infinite numbers of things exist everywhere in nature, you can see lots of infinite collections of things, like jelly beans and bumblebees and invisible pink unicorns

I don’t like the fine-tuning, but if my speculations about the multiverse are proven true, then I won’t have to learn to live with the fine-tuning

Inflation, the rapid expansion of the universe which occurs at some time after the the origin of the universe (t = 0), explains the absolute origin of time, space, matter and energy out of nothing that occurred at t = 0

Physical processes that develop subsequent to the creation of the universe at t > 0 can explain the fine-tuning of quantities that are set at t = 0

Morality is just a bunch of arbitrary conventions decided by groups of people in different times and places by an accidental process of biological and social evolution, but that practice over there by those people is objectively wrong!

1 Cor 15:3-7, which most scholars, even atheists like James Crossley, admit is dated to within 3 years of the death of Jesus, is actually dated to 50 years after the death of Jesus

The historical case for the resurrection made by people like N.T. Wright in their multi-volume academic works is on par with the story of Mohammed ascending to Heaven on a horse

Any theorem is only as good as its assumptions. The BGV theorem says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given worldline, this worldline cannot be infinite to the past.

A possible loophole is that there might be an epoch of contraction prior to the expansion. Models of this sort have been discussed by Aguirre & Gratton and by Carroll & Chen. They had to assume though that the minimum of entropy was reached at the bounce and offered no mechanism to enforce this condition. It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning.

On the other hand, Jaume Garriga and I are now exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply. In bubbles of negative vacuum energy, expansion is followed by cocntraction, and it is usually assumed that this ends in a big crunch singularity. However, it is conceivable (and many people think likely) that singularities will be resolved in the theory of quantum gravity, so the internal collapse of the bubbles will be followed by an expansion. In this scenario, a typical worldline will go through a succession of expanding and contracting regions, and it is not at all clear that the BGV assumption (expansion on average) will be satisfied.

I suspect that the theorem can be extended to this case, maybe with some additional assumptions. But of course there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, especially in matters like the creation of the universe. Note for example that the BGV theorem uses a classical picture of spacetime. In the regime where gravity becomes essentially quantum, we may not even know the right questions to ask.

Alex

Now recall that Krauss excuses the selective editing of the e-mail in the debate by saying that it was “too technical” to include. Judge for yourself if the omitted lines are “too technical” or whether they were omitted in order to mislead people about the evidence for the beginning of the universe.

Dr. Craig comments:

Whoa! That puts a very different face on the matter, doesn’t it? Why didn’t Krauss read the sentence, “It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning”? Because it was too technical? Is this the transparency, honesty, and forthrightness that Krauss extols? (By the way, Vilenkin’s criticism of these models is the same one that Vilenkin makes in his Cambridge paper: far from showing an eternal past, these models actually feature a universe with a common beginning point for two arrows of time.)

And why did Krauss delete Vilenkin’s caveat that the BGV theorem can, in his estimation, be extended to cover the case of an expanding and contracting model such as Garriga and Vilenkin are exploring? And why delete the remark that such a model is usually assumed to be incorrect? It’s evident that Vilenkin’s email was selectively edited to give it the spin Krauss wanted.

Some people told me that they thought that Dr. Craig needed to be a little less gracious with Krauss in the debate, but that comment takes Krauss on directly. Too bad most of the people who watch the debate will never know unless they see the original e-mail from Vilenkin that Craig posted.

Dr. Craig then wrote to Dr. Vilenkin about this misrepresentation and here is part of the reply:

The Aguirre-Gratton model can avoide singularities by postulating a small “initial” closed universe and then allowing it to evolve in both directions of time. I put “initial” in quotation marks, because Aguirre and Gratton do not think of it that way. But this model requires that a very special condition is enforced at some moment in the history of the universe. At that moment, the universe should be very small and have very low entropy. Aguirre and Gratton do not specify a physical mechanism that could enforce such a condition.

Carroll and Chen claim that the universe did not have to be small at that special moment. But in my recent paper I show that in this case singularities are unavoidable.

[…]I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately.

Now I don’t want anyone to get the idea that all atheists are like Krauss. I distinctly remember another atheist named Anthony Flew debating Dr. Craig and a questioner from the audience asked him why not prefer speculative cosmologies like the eternally oscillating model. Dr. Flew (unlike Dr. Krauss) was honest – he said that we have to accept the science we have today based on the evidence we have today. Dr. Krauss is not willing to accept the science we have today and the evidence we have today. That’s the difference. This is a failing of Dr. Krauss’ will and intellect. He simply cannot bring himself to accept what science has shown, if it impacts his autonomy in any way. He would rather mislead himself and others with speculations rather than face reality.

The segment from 52:18 to 57:12 about the Vilenkin e-mail on the BVG theorem is a must-see. Krauss is standing up and gesticulating while Craig is calmly trying to quote a paper by Vilenkin that shows that Krauss is misrepresenting Vilenkin. Krauss constantly interrupts him. After a while, when Craig exposes him as having misrepresented Vilenkin and gets him to admit that all current eternal models of the universe are probably wrong, he quietens down and can’t even look at Craig in the face.

Cosmological argument:

Craig: The e-mail says any universe that is expanding, on average, requires a beginning

Craig: There are two models – Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen – where there is a period of contraction before the expansion

Craig: The two models are the ones cited in the e-mail that Dr. Krauss showed

Craig: In the very paper by Vilenkin that I cited, he says that both of those models don’t work

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Vilenkin said that they have to make an assumption about entropy that they have no rationale for

(as Craig starts to talk Krauss makes an exaggerated, disrespectful gesture and sits down in a huff)

Craig: Yes, an unwarranted assumption means that they don’t have EVIDENCE for their theories being correct

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “All the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning but WE DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!” (raising his voice)

Craig: I’m not saying that we know that the universe had a beginning with certainty

Craig: I am saying that the beginning of the universe is more probably true than false based on the evidence we have

Craig: And you agree with me about that – you think the universe had a beginning

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) (Unintelligible)

Moderator: One at a time

Craig: In your Vilenkin e-mail slide, at the end of the paragraph where the two models are mentioned that Vilenkin specifically shows…

(I am guessing that Craig is going to ask why so much of what Vilenkin wrote has been cut out of the e-mail that Krauss showed)

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Because it was technical…

Moderator: Lawrence! Hang on a sec!

Craig: He specifically shows that these models are not past eternal, and that they require a beginning just like the others…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) We can do the math if you want

Craig: Now wait. I couldn’t help notice that there on your slide there was a series of ellipsis points indicating missing text…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “Yeah, because it was technical!”

Craig: “I wonder what you deleted from the original letter”

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “I just told you!”

Craig: “Now wait. Could it have been something like this: (reads a quote from Vilenkin) ‘You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.’

Craig: “That’s Vilenkin.”

Krauss: “In this paper, that’s absolutely right”

Krauss: But it’s ok for theories to assume things that we know are wrong – they are still good theories – it’s unknown

(Craig turns away and looks through his papers)

Craig: “Isn’t it true that the only viable quantum gravity models on order today involve a beginning – have a finite past?”

Krauss: “No”

Craig: “Well, can you give us one then”

Krauss: (talks about a variety of possible eternal models) “In my experience in science, all of them are probably wrong”

Krauss: “You know most theories are wrong, which is why, you know, it’s hard”

Craig: “Right”

Krauss accused Dr. Craig of misrepresenting science many times in his three Australia debates, but now we know the truth about who misrepresented science.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

Now given what Krauss did in the debate, it seems to me that he is not in agreement with Feynman.

UPDATE: Dr. Craig reports that Dr. Krauss refused to let the organizers live-stream the three Australia debates, as well as refusing to let the Australian Broadcasting Corporation live-broadcast the three debates.

Now compare that video with this story about a professor who was denied tenure for being personally pro-ID:

Internal e-mails and other documents obtained under the Iowa Open Records Act contradict public claims by Iowa State University (ISU) that denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was unrelated to his writing on the theory of intelligent design. According to these documents:

Dr. Gonzalez was subjected to a secret campaign of vilification and ridicule by colleagues in the Department of Physics and Astronomy who explicitly wanted to get rid of him because of his intelligent design views, not his scholarship.

Dr. Gonzalez’s work and views on intelligent design were repeatedly attacked during department tenure deliberations.

Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues plotted to evade the law by suppressing evidence that could be used against them in court to supply proof of a hostile work environment.

One of Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues admitted to another faculty member that the Department of Physics and Astronomy had violated the principle of academic freedom “massively” when it came to Gonzalez, while other colleagues expressed qualms that their plotting against Gonzalez was unethical or dishonest.

Dr. Gonzalez’s department chair misled the public after the denial of tenure by insisting that “intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this decision”–even though he had privately told colleagues that Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design alone “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”

In voting to reject tenure for Dr. Gonzalez, members of the Department of Physics and Astronomy all but ignored recommendations made by the majority of their own outside scientific reviewers, who thought Gonzalez clearly deserved tenure.

The bottom line according to these documents is that Dr. Gonzalez’s rights to academic freedom, free speech, and a fair tenure process were trampled on by colleagues who were driven by ideological zeal when they should have made an impartial evaluation of Gonzalez’s notable accomplishments as a scientist.

I have noticed a troubling trend during the last few years as I have blogged about the secular left. It seems to me that people on the left tend to have a strong, intense intolerance for any opinions that are different from their own. And they act on this intense intolerance by aggressively attacking the free speech and religious liberty of others.

You can see examples of this in the public schools and especially in the universities. Students being denied degrees, students being charged with offensive speech, students having secular leftist propaganda rammed down their throats, professors being prevented from teaching anything critical of the secular left, professors being denied tenure, and so on. It’s not a surprise either when you think that authoritarian regimes are typically atheistic, like in North Korea, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, etc. North Korea would be a paradise for an atheist like Lawrence Krauss. If anyone said anything about Jesus or even owned a Bible, then he could just have them killed. It’s less work than interrupting us, and more permanent.

I’m not saying that every atheist is like Krauss, but there does seem to be this tendency to silence, coerce and intimidate anyone who says anything that disagrees with atheism. Especially in the rank and file of the atheist movement. The whole atheist political effort (e.g. – Freedom from Religion Foundation, etc.) seems to be about forcing Christians to act like atheists in public, so that atheists don’t have to be offended by hearing views that disagree with their own views. They want to silence Christians by using the coercive power of big government. You can see it in debates, you can see it in the universities, and you can see it in the courtroom. They’re not trying to win arguments with evidence, they’re trying to end the argument with threats and coercion.